No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This paper looks at Texas tort law reform to make claims regarding the relationship between Texas tort reform and damages recovered. Starting with reform in 1977, Texas has passed 15 pieces of legislation that, in principle, restrict the damages plaintiffs recover. Most empirical analyses have focused primarily on analyzing behavior resulting from the tort reform. In other cases, research has looked at the impact the most recent reform has had on damages recovered in medical malpractice lawsuits. This paper is the first to study the impact of Texas tort law reform on damages recovered while looking at the entirety of recent law reform in the state. Specifically, I test the impact of the 15 different laws on total allocated loss, economic loss, and noneconomic loss recovered in all cases from 1988-2012. My findings suggest that caps on medical liability damages are successful at decreasing damages recovered when the cap is geared at either noneconomic damages, or a total damage figure that excludes punitive damages. This suggests that future caps on medical liability damages should explicitly cap either economic or noneconomic damages. Next, the results imply that caps on punitive damage legislature were most successful when using specific value caps paired with an evidence standard—caps of this nature decreased total damages by 28% in 1987 and 85% in 1995. Finally, an introductory legislation restricting the use of joint and several liability in cases when plaintiffs had little guilt was successful, it decreased total damages by 18.6%. This was followed by three failed attempts to impact the application of joint and several liability where the guilt threshold was higher, suggesting that joint and several liability is rarely used if the plaintiff has substantial guilt.

The three Articles that comprise this Dissertation explore how free expression and judicial federalism regulate hurtful speech and promised silence. The Articles tackle torts and free speech, contracts and free speech, and a comparative variation on those two themes. Judicial federalism threads all three Articles. The first Article, Silencing State Courts, argues that the current mode of enforcing the First Amendment against state common law speech torts fails to promote cooperative judicial federalism. Second, Silence for Sale argues that state courts should free themselves from constitutional straitjackets and recognize a robust public policy of free expression that voids some nondisclosure agreements. Finally, Comparative Judicial Federalism argues that the strength of a federal free speech guarantee varies with a country's particular species of judicial federalism. By comparing free speech and judicial federalism in the United States and Australia, it argues that Australia’s judicial federalism augments its implied freedom of political communication.

O presente estudo tem por objetivo demonstrar que, nas hipóteses em que alguém intervém na esfera jurídica alheia e obtém benefícios econômicos sem causar danos ao titular do direito ou, causando danos, o lucro obtido pelo ofensor é superior aos danos causados, as regras da responsabilidade civil, isoladamente, não são suficientes, à luz do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, enquanto sanção eficaz pela violação de um interesse merecedor de tutela. Isto porque, como a principal função da responsabilidade civil é remover o dano, naquelas hipóteses, não fosse a utilização de um remédio alternativo, o interventor faria seu o lucro da intervenção, no primeiro caso integralmente e, no segundo, no valor equivalente ao saldo entre o lucro obtido e a indenização que tiver que pagar à vítima. A tese pretende demonstrar que o problema do lucro da intervenção não deve ser solucionado por intermédio das regras da responsabilidade civil, devendo, portanto, ser rejeitadas as propostas de solução neste campo, como a interpretação extensiva do parágrafo único, do artigo 944, do Código Civil, as indenizações punitivas e o chamado terceiro método de cálculo da indenização. Como alternativa, propõe-se o enquadramento dogmático do lucro da intervenção no enriquecimento sem causa, outorgando ao titular do direito uma pretensão de restituição do lucro obtido pelo ofensor em razão da indevida ingerência em seus bens ou direitos. Defende-se que a transferência do lucro da intervenção para o titular do direito tem por fundamento a ponderação dos interesses em jogo à luz da Constituição Federal, com especial atenção ao princípio da solidariedade, e da teoria da destinação jurídica dos bens. A tese procura demonstrar, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro não exige um efetivo empobrecimento do titular do direito para a configuração do enriquecimento sem causa e que a regra da subsidiariedade não impede a cumulação de ações, de responsabilidade civil para eliminar o dano (e no limite do dano), e de enriquecimento sem causa, para forçar a restituição do saldo positivo que permanecer no patrimônio do ofensor após o pagamento da indenização, se houver. Finalmente, a tese pretende provocar a discussão acerca da quantificação do objeto da restituição, propondo alguns critérios que deverão orientar o aplicador do direito. / The present study aims to demonstrate that when someone profits by interfering In: another persons rights without causing damage to the victim, or when the act does cause damage but the benefits so obtained are greater than the damage caused, tort rules alone are not enough, under Brazilian Law, as an efficient sanction for violation of an interest or right that deserves protection. Since the maIn: function of civil liability rules is to redress the damage, or make the victim whole, without an alternative remedy the wrongdoer would keep the benefits wrongfully obtained, fully In: the first case and In: the second case to the extent of the difference between the profits obtained and damages paid to the victim. I aim to show that the problem of benefits wrongfully obtained cannot be solved through tort rules alone, and some proposed measures In: this area, such as expansive interpretation of Article 944, sole paragraph, of the Civil Code, punitive damages and the so-called third method of quantifying damages should be rejected. As an alternative, I propose framing the question of benefits wrongfully obtained withIn: the rules on unjust enrichment, granting the victim the right to claim restitution of benefits obtained by the wrongdoer by interference In: the victims assets or rights. I argue that the transfer of the benefits wrongfully obtained to the victim should be based on a balance of conflicting interests In: light of the Federal Constitution, with special attention to the solidarity principle and on the theory of the juridical allocation of assets. Besides this, I argue that Brazilian law does not require the victim to suffer any kind of damage In: order to apply unjust enrichment rules and that the subsidiarity rule does not prohibit the filing of joint claims, a tort one to remedy the damage (limited to the actual damage caused) and an unjust enrichment one to force restitution of any positive balance that remains with the wrongdoer after payment of damages. Finally, I intend to stimulate discussions on how to quantify the amount of restitution In: these cases and offer some criteria that can guide judges.

Thesis (D. Jur.)--York University, 2000. / "Graduate Programme in Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University." Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ67940.

Rationing of lifesaving resources in pandemics is likely to be an increasingly relevant issue. While the broad legal and ethical implications of pandemic preparedness have been explored at length, little attention has been paid to the legal issues associated with rationing. This thesis seeks to analyze the potential for administrative and private law challenges to governments’ rationing of vaccines, ventilators and antivirals. The wide variety of statutory authorities, and their associated conditions and discretionary limitations, that governments may rely on for mandating rationing protocols, makes them susceptible to administrative law challenges on the grounds of errors of jurisdiction. An analysis of the tort liability of governments, hospitals and physicians suggests that negligence suits will likely not be successful due to a lack of proximity required for a private law duty of care, the policy-making immunity of governments and a contextual standard of care.

Rationing of lifesaving resources in pandemics is likely to be an increasingly relevant issue. While the broad legal and ethical implications of pandemic preparedness have been explored at length, little attention has been paid to the legal issues associated with rationing. This thesis seeks to analyze the potential for administrative and private law challenges to governments’ rationing of vaccines, ventilators and antivirals. The wide variety of statutory authorities, and their associated conditions and discretionary limitations, that governments may rely on for mandating rationing protocols, makes them susceptible to administrative law challenges on the grounds of errors of jurisdiction. An analysis of the tort liability of governments, hospitals and physicians suggests that negligence suits will likely not be successful due to a lack of proximity required for a private law duty of care, the policy-making immunity of governments and a contextual standard of care.

Thesis--Columbia University, 1930. / Vita. Published also as Studies in history, economics and public law, ed. by the Faculty of political science of Columbia university, no. 316. "Bibliographical essay": p. 259-273.